It addresses the very question of how in heaven's name can a creature like me and you participate in the divine life without turning into crispy cinders in the process: to return to the sun and its rays as analog.

Great analogy!

You're right, we cannot participate in the Essence of God and therefore we must be participating in His Energies.

Yes, exactly. In Orthodox theology it is impossible to participate in the Essence of God, because that is God's God-ness and is utterly transcendent.

That is why I used the initial example of a human person, because a person's internal life is utterly transcendent to all other people. No person can enter into another person's inner life. God's essence, his "inner life" so to speak, is inaccessible also.

That's not a great comparison, because we can't experience God's inner life because it is by nature infinite. The same cannot be said about humans. I don't know that you are even correct that the inner life of a human cannot be shared in a different sense because of the possibility the their energies could fully express it.

Actually, I believe that Irish Hermit identified the Filiation of the Son and the Spiration of the Holy Spirit as Energies, and regarding this I agree with him.

So the Son and the Holy Spirit are energetic but not essential? Then is not of God's nature to be Trinitarian? See how many dangerous places a radical distinction between God's essence and his energies leads us?

Just because the Son and the Spirit are caused to come into being by Energies does not mean that they are not Essential.

Even the Creation was caused to come into being by Energies, but what they actually came into being from was nothing.

And no, Trinitarianism cannot possibly be a fundamental aspect of God's Essence because then the Father would not have the fullness of the Godhead in and of Himself independent of His causing the Son and the Spirit to Be.

Woah

God is Source, Archon

Son and Holy Spirit did NOT NOT NOT come into being!!

If you interpret that to mean a temporal or spacial beginning, yes, I know, you are right.

I was meaning it simply in terms of causation (eternal in this case). In this sense I think it is appropriate to speak of the Son and the Spirit eternally coming into being.

Given this, it really makes me wonder how you could possibly defend the traditional Thomist conception of the beatific vision, that is perceiving the very Essence of God.

We can experience his Essence if he so wills it. There is no theological problem here.

We do experience His essence: in the mode of the receiver rather than in the mode of the giver: in the mode of a creature, rather than the mode of the Divine Trinity

Essence and Energies are One

St. Gregory insists on it.

M.

They are one single reality, but part of that reality is transcendent while the other part is not. Similarly, a person can enjoy the sun perfectly fine on a chair at the beach, but he cannot enjoy the sun from within the 10 million degree plasma.

But it is a matter of distance NOT kind.

Where is it on the Sun-Ray continuum that the Essence morphs into Energies?

Given this, it really makes me wonder how you could possibly defend the traditional Thomist conception of the beatific vision, that is perceiving the very Essence of God.

We can experience his Essence if he so wills it. There is no theological problem here.

The theological problem is that the Essence is strictly infinite, and finite beings cannot logically experience that which is infinite.

The Energy of God is also infinite, so I don't think that is the distinction. I think the matter is simple. The Latins define the Divine Essence to include what the Easterns state is Essence and Energy. When Latins say that we can experience the Essence, they really mean "that of the Essence that can be experienced" which ultimately translates to the Energy of God.

It's all a matter of definition to me. And St. Paul warns us not to be separated by such things.

The Father eternally begets the Son and eternally proceeds the Holy Spirit. Their existence is derived from the Father. That does not mean that the Son and Holy Spirit once did not exist.

Nononono...do not use the language of derivation. The Son and Spirit are NOT derived. They ARE.

The Father is the Source, the Archon...

The rest is mystery.

I hate to say it but it is a protestant habit to speak of derivation with the Persons of the Trinity.

To speak of the Son and the Spirit as simply being without causation is tritheistic.

The Son has to be generated from the Essence of the Father. The Spirit has to be spirated from the Essence of the Father. I don't see how it is incorrect to think of this as derivation so long as it is understood as eternal, not spacial or temporal, there never being a time or place where they were not.

Wow. This sounds down right heretical. Elijah Maria can correct me if I am wrong, but God the Father is Father. That is what he is, from all eternity and would not have been otherwise. That sounds essential to me. Elijah, help me out, but isn't it God'e existence as Trinity, essential to Him?

Actually, what you are suggesting is more obviously in error. The Father is Father from eternity and there is no chance He would have been otherwise, so that must be part of His Essence.

Well, the same can be said of the Son and the Spirit.

So you wind up having three different Essences.

Because that is heretical, it must be admitted that their hypostatic particularities are not Essential.

As a matter of fact, this is precisely what Saint Basil the Great says in On the Holy Spirit.

And no, Trinitarianism cannot possibly be a fundamental aspect of God's Essence because then the Father would not have the fullness of the Godhead in and of Himself independent of His causing the Son and the Spirit to Be.

Wow. This sounds down right heretical. Elijah Maria can correct me if I am wrong, but God the Father is Father. That is what he is, from all eternity and would not have been otherwise. That sounds essential to me. Elijah, help me out, but isn't it God'e existence as Trinity, essential to Him?

Meet Nestor-or extreme monarchialism

++++++++++++++

EACH have the fullness of the Godhead

++++++++++++++

NOT ONE of the Persons of the Trinity COME INTO BEING

They ARE

It's both.

The Son and the Spirit are YHWH because there never was a time when they were not or a place where they were not.

But they are caused to be by the Father and thus in this sense ought to be understood as eternally coming into being.

You also know very well that the Catholics profess the distinction in persons and do NOT fuse any of them.

It's pretty much impossible not too implicitly fuse the hypostases without remaining faithful to the monarchy of the Father. Heck, you've even go so far as to confuse Essence and Hypostases by saying that the Fatherhood is Essential!

Finally, you also know that in Catholic theology, the manner in which the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, as primary/ultimate source, is different from the way in which the Holy Spirit proceeds from The Son, who is secondary/penultimate source; thus, maintaining the distinction in persons.

Nonsense: "the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father and the Son as from one principle".

Given this, it really makes me wonder how you could possibly defend the traditional Thomist conception of the beatific vision, that is perceiving the very Essence of God.

We can experience his Essence if he so wills it. There is no theological problem here.

The theological problem is that the Essence is strictly infinite, and finite beings cannot logically experience that which is infinite.

The Energy of God is also infinite, so I don't think that is the distinction. I think the matter is simple. The Latins define the Divine Essence to include what the Easterns state is Essence and Energy. When Latins say that we can experience the Essence, they really mean "that of the Essence that can be experienced" which ultimately translates to the Energy of God.

It's all a matter of definition to me. And St. Paul warns us not to be separated by such things.

Blessings

You're saying the Energies are infinite in nature? That doesn't seem to be what I've heard from Palamites. They seem to think that the Energies can be linguistically encapsulated, where the Essence cannot. The ability to really linguistically describe the nature of something requires limitation.

As an Oriental, I do not in the least feel compelled to have my belief on the Essence and Energy of God be informed by what Palamists teach on the matter. I have a great respect for St. Palamas from what I’ve read of him, but I feel EO today have an unpatristic (note I did not say heretical) understanding of the Essence/Energy distinction.

I do not find in the Fathers the ontological distinction between the Essence and Energy that modern EO seem to impose on the teaching. I understand from the Fathers that God is one and that the only ontological distinction within the Godhead is the distinction of Persons. There is no such thing as a distinction within the Godhead of Essence and Energy. Just because we can somehow describe God does not mean that he is composed of something called Energy that can be described, and another thing called Essence that can’t.

The distinction between Essence and Energy is purely epistemological. It is simply a way for us mere creatures to somehow grasp in our language the otherwise incomprehensible reality of the total otherness of God while simultaneously sharing in his Divinity.

Both God’s Essence and Energy are infinite. They are one. To repeat, the distinction is merely epistemological, not ontological.

You're saying the Energies are infinite in nature? That doesn't seem to be what I've heard from Palamites. They seem to think that the Energies can be linguistically encapsulated, where the Essence cannot.

The energies of God are uncreated and so they are as infinite as His essence.

As with His essence the energies fade away for our circumscribed human understanding into the great mystery of apophatic language - God is not love, God is not existence, etc. The Saints of the Church, far along on the path of theosis may begin to comprehend them experientially and mystically but they will always lack the means to portray them linguistically - the "dark glass" which prevented Saint Paul from adequately describing his experiences in the afterlife is present. "Eye hath nor seen nor hath ear heard....."

You're saying the Energies are infinite in nature? That doesn't seem to be what I've heard from Palamites. They seem to think that the Energies can be linguistically encapsulated, where the Essence cannot.

The energies of God are uncreated and so they are as infinite as His essence.

As with His essence the energies fade away for our circumscribed human understanding into the great mystery of apophatic language - God is not love, God is not existence, etc. The Saints of the Church, far along on the path of theosis may begin to comprehend them experientially and mystically but they will always lack the means to portray them linguistically - the "dark glass" which prevented Saint Paul from adequately describing his experiences in the afterlife is present. "Eye hath nor seen nor hath ear heard....."

I knew the Energies were uncreated, but I thought they were not infinite, in the sense that they actually convey something understandable and limited.

I don't doubt that you may be right about this: I haven't ever really gotten a strong sense that I understand the nature of the Energies in Palamite theology.

So, that leaves me with the same question as for the Thomists: how could and inherently finite being possibly participate in that which is inherently infinite?

You're saying the Energies are infinite in nature? That doesn't seem to be what I've heard from Palamites. They seem to think that the Energies can be linguistically encapsulated, where the Essence cannot.

The energies of God are uncreated and so they are as infinite as His essence.

As with His essence the energies fade away for our circumscribed human understanding into the great mystery of apophatic language - God is not love, God is not existence, etc. The Saints of the Church, far along on the path of theosis may begin to comprehend them experientially and mystically but they will always lack the means to portray them linguistically - the "dark glass" which prevented Saint Paul from adequately describing his experiences in the afterlife is present. "Eye hath nor seen nor hath ear heard....."

I knew the Energies were uncreated, but I thought they were not infinite, in the sense that they actually convey something understandable and limited.

From a human perspective yes..... that is the core of apophatic theology which strives to break through the limitation of human experience and understanding -and only partially succeeds. To use a more familiar example for Westerners- that of the Roman Catholic understanding of the Beatific Vision which brings a man to look upon God and comprises the joy of the future life. While what he looks upon is infinite and beyond comprehension but he does comprehend it, to a *very* limited extent

Quote

So, that leaves me with the same question as for the Thomists: how could and inherently finite being possibly participate in that which is inherently infinite?

"Becoming by grace what God is by nature" this becomes possible in the process of theosis.

As for the thomists, would they not also be driven to ask, how can a finite human being look upon the infinite deity in the Beatific Vision?

To use a more familiar example for Westerners- that of the Roman Catholic understanding of the Beatific Vision which brings a man to look upon God and comprises the joy of the future life. While what he looks upon is infinite and beyond comprehension but he does comprehend it, to a *very* limited extent

I don't think the Western Thomist conception of the Beatific Vision is orthodox.

"Becoming by grace what God is by nature" this becomes possible in the process of theosis.

Yet grace is the Energies of God, therefore uncreated, therefore infinite. So this is circular logic. You're telling me that we're able to participate in the infinite by being transformed by the infinite.

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

I was hoping you'd mention Lossky. When I have time, I will post something of his here that makes it very clear that Grace=Him needs a little work to make sense.

I suppose the question is, if grace is not Him (God) then who is it? Are there other uncreated persons or things in existence besides God?

Are the energies also Him? In other words Energies=Him.

The real issue that needs more work is:

Does Essence=Him

And if Essence=Him

How can Energies=Him

And then the question of course

Do Energies=Grace

If so does Grace=Him

If so do we participate in Essence=Him or Energies=Him?

And if there is an Essence=Him AND and Energies=Him...

How many Divinities do we actually have here?

There are answers to all of this but it makes the assertion that Energies=Him a little bit meaningless when shoved out there as some kind of correction for calling grace "it" or energies "them"...which Lossky does alladarntime!!....ain't that peculiar.

M.

Also one of the reasons that I think that Gregory Palamas may have gone too far.

How many volumes are the Summa Theologica? And St. Gregory went too far?

When discussing the Persons of the Trinity, do we say "He" or "They?" Many languages say "she" because "Trinity" is feminine. I'd have to examples from Lossky to address your allegations of deficiency in his language.

But as for answers: Essence=Him, Energies=Him just as 1x1x1=1, 1x1x1/1=1

Grace=Energies=Him

We partake of the Divine Nature in His Energies (though I admit an interesting question as to the Eucharist: is the Godhead present in His Essence or His Energies).

One God.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Given this, it really makes me wonder how you could possibly defend the traditional Thomist conception of the beatific vision, that is perceiving the very Essence of God.

We can experience his Essence if he so wills it. There is no theological problem here.

We do experience His essence: in the mode of the receiver rather than in the mode of the giver: in the mode of a creature, rather than the mode of the Divine Trinity

Essence and Energies are One

St. Gregory insists on it.

M.

They are one single reality, but part of that reality is transcendent while the other part is not. Similarly, a person can enjoy the sun perfectly fine on a chair at the beach, but he cannot enjoy the sun from within the 10 million degree plasma.

Where is it on the Sun-Ray continuum that the Essence morphs into Energies?

The Essence does not morph, i.e. change, into Energies, any more than the sun morphs into rays. For instance, from a sunray we can determine the elements in the sun's core. Which is a good thing, as we can't take samples from the surface and text them.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Elijah, do you think that this extreme monarchialism comes from anti-western sentiments since Latins tend to emphasize the ontological equality of the Divine Persons?

You are skipping the subordination of the Spirit in the Filioque.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

I am still intrigued by the unexpected appearance of the term "the Graces" repeated and repeated in your last couple of messages. I have never seen you use it before and am curious what is behind its sudden appearance.

Are you about to correct the Hail Mary to "Hail Mary, full of the Graces..."? Have the Latin translators made a mistake by using the singular?

When I use the term "Grace," I would use it in a number of different ways: Divine Energy, Divine action, the effect of a divine action, the Holy Spirit, or any benefit from God.

When I use the term "Graces," I would likewise use it in a number of different ways: Divine Energies, Divine actions, effects of a divine action, or benefits from God.

Whichever one you think fits according to the context of the phrase is probably what I was thinking of when I used the term.

Interestingly (well, to me anyway) if we take Grace to mean the Holy Spirit, it would fit perfectly with the phrase "full of Grace." It would mean, as Father Deacon Lance pointed out, that Mary was full of the Holy Spirit. As you already know, however, being full of the Holy Spirit does not mean being full of all the Graces that the Holy Spirit can give, according to St. Paul. The Holy Spirit gives Grace/Graces according to His purpose. As the quote from the Apostolic Constitution of the dogma of the IC (quoted by brother Isa) indicates, "Mary 'was enriched by God with gifts appropriate to such a role.'" Mary did not receive the gifts/Graces of prophecy or leadership or healing or infallibility, etc. She received particular graces from the moment of her existence suited for her role to be the Mother of God for the specific purpose, as the Apostolic Constitution states, of enabling her to respond to the message of the angel in a positive manner.

Of course, Mardukm, like Pope Pius, begs the question that the IC is one of those "particular graces suited for her role to be the Mother of God for the specific purpose of enabling her to respond to the message of the angel in a positive manner." We have covered this before, e.g.:

Him, who knew no sin, He hath made sin for us, that we might be made the justice of God in Him. II Cor. 5:21. The Incarnation does not need the IC.

I don’t understand your interpretation of that passage as it relates to the IC. Are you saying that Jesus sinned?

God forbid! It just proves that the IC is an ingenious solution to a non-existent problem. All the protestations of horror that God would let His mother be subject to sin, even just original sin, for nought.

Quote

CCC 490 To become the mother of the Saviour, Mary "was enriched by God with gifts appropriate to such a role."132 The angel Gabriel at the moment of the annunciation salutes her as "full of grace". In fact, in order for Mary to be able to give the free assent of her faith to the announcement of her vocation, it was necessary that she be wholly borne by God's grace.491 Through the centuries the Church has become ever more aware that Mary, "full of grace" through God,134 was redeemed from the moment of her conception. That is what the dogma of the Immaculate Conception confesses, as Pope Pius IX proclaimed in 1854:

The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Saviour of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin

493 The Fathers of the Eastern tradition call the Mother of God "the All-Holy" (Panagia), and celebrate her as "free from any stain of sin, as though fashioned by the Holy Spirit and formed as a new creature" [by typical slight of hand, this is not a quote from "the Fathers of the Eastern tradition," but from the Latin "Lumen Gentium" 56]. By the grace of God Mary remained free of every personal sin her whole life long. "Let it be done to me according to your word. . ."494 At the announcement that she would give birth to "the Son of the Most High" without knowing man, by the power of the Holy Spirit, Mary responded with the obedience of faith, certain that "with God nothing will be impossible": "Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be [done] to me according to your word." Thus, giving her consent to God's word, Mary becomes the mother of Jesus. Espousing the divine will for salvation wholeheartedly, without a single sin to restrain her, she gave herself entirely to the person and to the work of her Son; she did so in order to serve the mystery of redemption with him and dependent on him, by God's grace:

Potuit, sed non decuit ergo non fecit.

Since He became sin for us, He had no need of a IC'd mother.

Mardukm, of course, claims that the East came up with the IC, evidence to the contrary notwithstanding, and gives it his own singular spin:

What "western doctrines" are you talking about? The teaching of the IC was originally an Eastern teaching that the West gradually accepted. There is nothing about it particularly Western except the language of the dogma. But the teaching itself (not its dogmatic formulation) is primordially Eastern.

Put another way, which Eastern position are you accepting? 1) Mary received Graces only at her annunciation, and she was sinless beforehand by the use of her own free will. That is riddled with Pelagianism.

3) Mary received Graces before her birth, but after her conception. This would be the most sensible non-Catholic position, since though there is NO direct patristic support for it, it can nevertheless be inferred from the patristic prooftexts used for the IC - namely, explicit statements by many Western and Eastern Fathers (mostly Eastern) that Mary was formed or created by God without stain. The only problem with this position is that a better one exists - i.e., the teaching of the IC (because Mary was formed by God from the first moment of her existence).

or better yet that she was full of the Holy Spirit like St. John was from the womb, and saving the only Immaculate Conception for that which occured on the Annunciation.

4) The teaching of the IC is acceptable but not necessary (i.e., the teaching should not be a dogma, but remain a theologoumenon). This position would actually not put you outside the pale of Catholicism, since the censure of the dogma is only against those who disbelieve it, not against those who believe it, but not as a dogma.

Your "infallible" pope disagrees:

Quote

We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful. Hence, if anyone shall dare -- which God forbid! -- to think otherwise than as has been defined by us, let him know and understand that he is condemned by his own judgment; that he has suffered shipwreck in the faith; that he has separated from the unity of the Church; and that, furthermore, by his own action he incurs the penalties established by law if he should dare to express in words or writing or by any other outward means the errors he thinks in his heart.

I will make one comment about the Greek often translated as "full of Grace." No Eastern or Oriental Catholic here (AFAIK) has ever claimed that the Greek term means "all divine graces." I certainly haven't. Not even the apostolic constitution you quoted makes that claim (i.e., though it uses the term "full of grace," nowhere does it claim that the term is equivalent to your exaggerated interpretation). So I don't know how you think your "all divine graces" argument has any validity. Your attempting a reductio ad absurdum argument, but the only thing shown to be absurd here is your credibility.

which but requires a look at Ineffabilis Deus:

Quote

When the Fathers and writers of the Church meditated on the fact that the most Blessed Virgin was, in the name and by order of God himself, proclaimed full of grace by the Angel Gabriel when he announced her most sublime dignity of Mother of God, they thought that this singular and solemn salutation, never heard before, showed that the Mother of God is the seat of all divine graces and is adorned with all gifts of the Holy Spirit. To them Mary is an almost infinite treasury, an inexhaustible abyss of these gifts, to such an extent that she was never subject to the curse and was, together with her Son, the only partaker of perpetual benediction. Hence she was worthy to hear Elizabeth, inspired by the Holy Spirit, exclaim: "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb."

As every Catholic knows (or should know), infallibility refers only to the specific teaching that is being defined. It does not apply to the preamble (the apostolic constitution) that accompanies the teaching.

That's nice. Now explain how, under Lumen Gentium, as Fr. Ambrose posted, that makes a difference.

Not every "Catholic knows" that it is not infallible, but according to Lumen Gentium, they should assent to it.

However, the apostolic consitution is indeed considered magisterial and authoritative. It's something non-Catholics (and probably a few Catholics) can't understand, so, as you can see here, they run around in circles in their arguments, because they seek to impose their non-Catholic perceptions on Catholic teaching.An example here would be this issue of "full of grace" being brought up by brother Isa. He makes a big dieal about it being contained in an apostolic constitution, but he doesn't realize that the term "full of grace" here is not being defined, but rather being used somewhat in a colloquial manner, since "full of grace" is often the translation that people are used to.

Ineffibilis Deus is hardly a colloquial document: for one thing, there hasn't been colloquial Latin for quite some time.

Here's the Latin of the part I have repeatedly refered to, since you say "translation" is the problem.

When the Fathers and writers of the Church meditated on the fact that the most Blessed Virgin was, in the name and by order of God himself, proclaimed full of grace[22] by the Angel Gabriel when he announced her most sublime dignity of Mother of God, they thought that this singular and solemn salutation, never heard before, showed that the Mother of God is the seat of all divine graces and is adorned with all gifts of the Holy Spirit. To them Mary is an almost infinite treasury, an inexhaustible abyss of these gifts, to such an extent that she was never subject to the curse and was, together with her Son, the only partaker of perpetual benediction. Hence she was worthy to hear Elizabeth, inspired by the Holy Spirit, exclaim: "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb."[23]

Close enough at an attempt to define the phrase. That it fails, not withstanding scrutiny, doesn't change that.

The idea of Mary being "full of grace," or being the "seat of divine graces" is a near-UNIVERSAL praise given to Mary by the Fathers. HOWEVER, we all understand that these are poetic and figurative terms. It's absurd to think that this is supposed to have a literal meaning. If it was taken literally, then it would mean that Mary had the Grace of the priesthood, which the Church has never taught. You yourself would understand the dramatically effusive praises of the Eastern Church in poetic, not literal terms. I think it would be unChristian (i.e., violates a lot of moral precepts taught us by our Lord) to assume the Latin Church, or the Catholic Church as a whole, would not likewise understand it in such a manner, if the only purpose is to disparage the Catholic Church.

I don't notice any misunderstanding on my part on this issue. Just accusations of "disparagement" when I have just quoted their words.

But I agree about the priesthood and the "all graces." Problem is, the "full of grace" argument depends on the "all graces."

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

No, the teaching of the Beatific Vision is not known in Eastern Orthodoxy. It would be interesting though to know how far back it goes in the Church of the West, if it is found in its orthodox time?

Saint John seems to hint at it.

And is it not interesting that he speaks of an ontological change in us the nature of which he cannot specify.

1 John 3

Behold what manner of love the Father has bestowed on us, that we should be called children of God. Therefore the world does not know us, because it did not know Him. Beloved, now we are children of God; and it has not yet been revealed what we shall be, but we know that when He is revealed, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is.

I am still intrigued by the unexpected appearance of the term "the Graces" repeated and repeated in your last couple of messages. I have never seen you use it before and am curious what is behind its sudden appearance.

Are you about to correct the Hail Mary to "Hail Mary, full of the Graces..."? Have the Latin translators made a mistake by using the singular?

When I use the term "Grace," I would use it in a number of different ways: Divine Energy, Divine action, the effect of a divine action, the Holy Spirit, or any benefit from God.

When I use the term "Graces," I would likewise use it in a number of different ways: Divine Energies, Divine actions, effects of a divine action, or benefits from God.

Whichever one you think fits according to the context of the phrase is probably what I was thinking of when I used the term.

Interestingly (well, to me anyway) if we take Grace to mean the Holy Spirit, it would fit perfectly with the phrase "full of Grace." It would mean, as Father Deacon Lance pointed out, that Mary was full of the Holy Spirit. As you already know, however, being full of the Holy Spirit does not mean being full of all the Graces that the Holy Spirit can give, according to St. Paul. The Holy Spirit gives Grace/Graces according to His purpose. As the quote from the Apostolic Constitution of the dogma of the IC (quoted by brother Isa) indicates, "Mary 'was enriched by God with gifts appropriate to such a role.'" Mary did not receive the gifts/Graces of prophecy or leadership or healing or infallibility, etc. She received particular graces from the moment of her existence suited for her role to be the Mother of God for the specific purpose, as the Apostolic Constitution states, of enabling her to respond to the message of the angel in a positive manner.

Of course, Mardukm, like Pope Pius, begs the question that the IC is one of those "particular graces suited for her role to be the Mother of God for the specific purpose of enabling her to respond to the message of the angel in a positive manner." We have covered this before, e.g.:

Him, who knew no sin, He hath made sin for us, that we might be made the justice of God in Him. II Cor. 5:21. The Incarnation does not need the IC.

I don’t understand your interpretation of that passage as it relates to the IC. Are you saying that Jesus sinned?

God forbid! It just proves that the IC is an ingenious solution to a non-existent problem. All the protestations of horror that God would let His mother be subject to sin, even just original sin, for nought.

Quote

CCC 490 To become the mother of the Saviour, Mary "was enriched by God with gifts appropriate to such a role."132 The angel Gabriel at the moment of the annunciation salutes her as "full of grace". In fact, in order for Mary to be able to give the free assent of her faith to the announcement of her vocation, it was necessary that she be wholly borne by God's grace.491 Through the centuries the Church has become ever more aware that Mary, "full of grace" through God,134 was redeemed from the moment of her conception. That is what the dogma of the Immaculate Conception confesses, as Pope Pius IX proclaimed in 1854:

The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Saviour of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin

493 The Fathers of the Eastern tradition call the Mother of God "the All-Holy" (Panagia), and celebrate her as "free from any stain of sin, as though fashioned by the Holy Spirit and formed as a new creature" [by typical slight of hand, this is not a quote from "the Fathers of the Eastern tradition," but from the Latin "Lumen Gentium" 56]. By the grace of God Mary remained free of every personal sin her whole life long. "Let it be done to me according to your word. . ."494 At the announcement that she would give birth to "the Son of the Most High" without knowing man, by the power of the Holy Spirit, Mary responded with the obedience of faith, certain that "with God nothing will be impossible": "Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be [done] to me according to your word." Thus, giving her consent to God's word, Mary becomes the mother of Jesus. Espousing the divine will for salvation wholeheartedly, without a single sin to restrain her, she gave herself entirely to the person and to the work of her Son; she did so in order to serve the mystery of redemption with him and dependent on him, by God's grace:

Potuit, sed non decuit ergo non fecit.

Since He became sin for us, He had no need of a IC'd mother.

Mardukm, of course, claims that the East came up with the IC, evidence to the contrary notwithstanding, and gives it his own singular spin:

What "western doctrines" are you talking about? The teaching of the IC was originally an Eastern teaching that the West gradually accepted. There is nothing about it particularly Western except the language of the dogma. But the teaching itself (not its dogmatic formulation) is primordially Eastern.

Put another way, which Eastern position are you accepting? 1) Mary received Graces only at her annunciation, and she was sinless beforehand by the use of her own free will. That is riddled with Pelagianism.

3) Mary received Graces before her birth, but after her conception. This would be the most sensible non-Catholic position, since though there is NO direct patristic support for it, it can nevertheless be inferred from the patristic prooftexts used for the IC - namely, explicit statements by many Western and Eastern Fathers (mostly Eastern) that Mary was formed or created by God without stain. The only problem with this position is that a better one exists - i.e., the teaching of the IC (because Mary was formed by God from the first moment of her existence).

or better yet that she was full of the Holy Spirit like St. John was from the womb, and saving the only Immaculate Conception for that which occured on the Annunciation.

4) The teaching of the IC is acceptable but not necessary (i.e., the teaching should not be a dogma, but remain a theologoumenon). This position would actually not put you outside the pale of Catholicism, since the censure of the dogma is only against those who disbelieve it, not against those who believe it, but not as a dogma.

Your "infallible" pope disagrees:

Quote

We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful. Hence, if anyone shall dare -- which God forbid! -- to think otherwise than as has been defined by us, let him know and understand that he is condemned by his own judgment; that he has suffered shipwreck in the faith; that he has separated from the unity of the Church; and that, furthermore, by his own action he incurs the penalties established by law if he should dare to express in words or writing or by any other outward means the errors he thinks in his heart.

I will make one comment about the Greek often translated as "full of Grace." No Eastern or Oriental Catholic here (AFAIK) has ever claimed that the Greek term means "all divine graces." I certainly haven't. Not even the apostolic constitution you quoted makes that claim (i.e., though it uses the term "full of grace," nowhere does it claim that the term is equivalent to your exaggerated interpretation). So I don't know how you think your "all divine graces" argument has any validity. Your attempting a reductio ad absurdum argument, but the only thing shown to be absurd here is your credibility.

which but requires a look at Ineffabilis Deus:

Quote

When the Fathers and writers of the Church meditated on the fact that the most Blessed Virgin was, in the name and by order of God himself, proclaimed full of grace by the Angel Gabriel when he announced her most sublime dignity of Mother of God, they thought that this singular and solemn salutation, never heard before, showed that the Mother of God is the seat of all divine graces and is adorned with all gifts of the Holy Spirit. To them Mary is an almost infinite treasury, an inexhaustible abyss of these gifts, to such an extent that she was never subject to the curse and was, together with her Son, the only partaker of perpetual benediction. Hence she was worthy to hear Elizabeth, inspired by the Holy Spirit, exclaim: "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb."

As every Catholic knows (or should know), infallibility refers only to the specific teaching that is being defined. It does not apply to the preamble (the apostolic constitution) that accompanies the teaching.

That's nice. Now explain how, under Lumen Gentium, as Fr. Ambrose posted, that makes a difference.

Not every "Catholic knows" that it is not infallible, but according to Lumen Gentium, they should assent to it.

However, the apostolic consitution is indeed considered magisterial and authoritative. It's something non-Catholics (and probably a few Catholics) can't understand, so, as you can see here, they run around in circles in their arguments, because they seek to impose their non-Catholic perceptions on Catholic teaching.An example here would be this issue of "full of grace" being brought up by brother Isa. He makes a big dieal about it being contained in an apostolic constitution, but he doesn't realize that the term "full of grace" here is not being defined, but rather being used somewhat in a colloquial manner, since "full of grace" is often the translation that people are used to.

Ineffibilis Deus is hardly a colloquial document: for one thing, there hasn't been colloquial Latin for quite some time.

Here's the Latin of the part I have repeatedly refered to, since you say "translation" is the problem.

When the Fathers and writers of the Church meditated on the fact that the most Blessed Virgin was, in the name and by order of God himself, proclaimed full of grace[22] by the Angel Gabriel when he announced her most sublime dignity of Mother of God, they thought that this singular and solemn salutation, never heard before, showed that the Mother of God is the seat of all divine graces and is adorned with all gifts of the Holy Spirit. To them Mary is an almost infinite treasury, an inexhaustible abyss of these gifts, to such an extent that she was never subject to the curse and was, together with her Son, the only partaker of perpetual benediction. Hence she was worthy to hear Elizabeth, inspired by the Holy Spirit, exclaim: "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb."[23]

Close enough at an attempt to define the phrase. That it fails, not withstanding scrutiny, doesn't change that.

The idea of Mary being "full of grace," or being the "seat of divine graces" is a near-UNIVERSAL praise given to Mary by the Fathers. HOWEVER, we all understand that these are poetic and figurative terms. It's absurd to think that this is supposed to have a literal meaning. If it was taken literally, then it would mean that Mary had the Grace of the priesthood, which the Church has never taught. You yourself would understand the dramatically effusive praises of the Eastern Church in poetic, not literal terms. I think it would be unChristian (i.e., violates a lot of moral precepts taught us by our Lord) to assume the Latin Church, or the Catholic Church as a whole, would not likewise understand it in such a manner, if the only purpose is to disparage the Catholic Church.

I don't notice any misunderstanding on my part on this issue. Just accusations of "disparagement" when I have just quoted their words.

But I agree about the priesthood and the "all graces." Problem is, the "full of grace" argument depends on the "all graces."

Dear Ia,

It is always a pain to read your awful tiny teeny font size with long quotes, but, as with this message, it is often worth the trouble.

Sorry but that is just a stupid argument and you know it. The Filioque doesn't ontologically subordiante the Holy Spirit any more than the fact that the Son is begotton of the Father would suboridnate the Logos. Sorry Isa, this isn't even a nice try.

Logged

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

How many volumes are the Summa Theologica? And St. Gregory went too far?

Oh pleas Isa, you know what I meant. Gregory didn't go too far in how much he wrote. He went too far in radically distinguishing between the essence and energies.

« Last Edit: September 23, 2010, 08:17:07 AM by Papist »

Logged

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

No, the teaching of the Beatific Vision is not known in Eastern Orthodoxy. It would be interesting though to know how far back it goes in the Church of the West, if it is found in its orthodox time?

Saint John seems to hint at it.

And is it not interesting that he speaks of an ontological change in us the nature of which he cannot specify.

1 John 3

Behold what manner of love the Father has bestowed on us, that we should be called children of God. Therefore the world does not know us, because it did not know Him. Beloved, now we are children of God; and it has not yet been revealed what we shall be, but we know that when He is revealed, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is.

Yup. That's the Beatific Vision all right. Notice, he didn't say that we shall see God's activities, but see God as his is. That's Essence.

« Last Edit: September 23, 2010, 08:02:27 AM by Papist »

Logged

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

Sorry but that is just a stupid argument and you know it. The Filioque doesn't ontologically subordiante the Holy Spirit any more than the fact that the Son is begotton of the Father would suboridnate the Logos. Sorry Isa, this isn't even a nice try.

Huh?

Yeah it does.

You have said that the Father shares everything with the Son except for that which is addressed by their opposing relationship, and therefore that the Son "possesses" the Spiration of the Holy Spirit. And yet, you are not willing to say that the same about the Holy Spirit sharing the Begetting of the Son, even though it should logically follow. Thus, the Holy Spirit is subordinated.

Huh?Yeah it does.You have said that the Father shares everything with the Son except for that which is addressed by their opposing relationship, and therefore that the Son "possesses" the Spiration of the Holy Spirit. And yet, you are not willing to say that the same about the Holy Spirit sharing the Begetting of the Son, even though it should logically follow. Thus, the Holy Spirit is subordinated.

If the Holy Spirit shared the begetting of the Son, then He would be a Father, but no one has two Fathers but one. So no, the Holy Spirit is not subordinated. I have never been impressed by Eastern attempts to say that Catholics believe that the Holy Spirit was subordinate. I am especially not impressed when you know very well that we profess their equality.

Logged

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

Huh?Yeah it does.You have said that the Father shares everything with the Son except for that which is addressed by their opposing relationship, and therefore that the Son "possesses" the Spiration of the Holy Spirit. And yet, you are not willing to say that the same about the Holy Spirit sharing the Begetting of the Son, even though it should logically follow. Thus, the Holy Spirit is subordinated.

If the Holy Spirit shared the begetting of the Son, then He would be a Father, but no one has two Fathers but one. So no, the Holy Spirit is not subordinated. I have never been impressed by Eastern attempts to say that Catholics believe that the Holy Spirit was subordinate. I am especially not impressed when you know very well that we profess their equality.

As an Oriental, I do not in the least feel compelled to have my belief on the Essence and Energy of God be informed by what Palamists teach on the matter. I have a great respect for St. Palamas from what I’ve read of him, but I feel EO today have an unpatristic (note I did not say heretical) understanding of the Essence/Energy distinction.

I do not find in the Fathers the ontological distinction between the Essence and Energy that modern EO seem to impose on the teaching. I understand from the Fathers that God is one and that the only ontological distinction within the Godhead is the distinction of Persons. There is no such thing as a distinction within the Godhead of Essence and Energy. Just because we can somehow describe God does not mean that he is composed of something called Energy that can be described, and another thing called Essence that can’t.

The distinction between Essence and Energy is purely epistemological. It is simply a way for us mere creatures to somehow grasp in our language the otherwise incomprehensible reality of the total otherness of God while simultaneously sharing in his Divinity.

Both God’s Essence and Energy are infinite. They are one. To repeat, the distinction is merely epistemological, not ontological.

Blessings

As you might guess, I am in agreement with you in the main.

After I've read this thread however, I have a great deal of respect for St. Gregory because when I have finished reading St. Gregory, I don't come out wondering why he bothered.

The confusion evidenced in the early part of this thread is not encouraging, and some of the un-nuanced and uncritical conflation of Essence and Energies later in the thread make one wonder why bother making the distinction in the first place.

But I would not write St. Gregory off in this, any more than I write off St. Thomas, and as I noted earlier I would not turn my hand for the difference in the explanatory power of either one of them, knowing the purpose to which each turned their understanding of nature and grace and Persons of the Trinity. Their purposes were not identical so that there are details that make their work not entirely equivalent but they are not useless by any means.

It is generally in the use of St. Gregory, or a virtually unread St. Thomas, as one of THE dividing lines between east and west that creates all kinds of distortions of both their purposes and their concepts.

It is always a pain to read your awful tiny teeny font size with long quotes, but, as with this message, it is often worth the trouble.

Thanks, Father. My apology: I have to use the "zoom" on the computer myself. I can't remember what was the problem with enlarged type (band width or some such thing).

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Sorry but that is just a stupid argument and you know it. The Filioque doesn't ontologically subordiante the Holy Spirit any more than the fact that the Son is begotton of the Father would suboridnate the Logos. Sorry Isa, this isn't even a nice try.

If the Spirit proceeds from the Son rather than through then He has to be begotten first to process from the Son. We've covered this before.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

How many volumes are the Summa Theologica? And St. Gregory went too far?

Oh pleas Isa, you know what I meant. Gregory didn't go too far in how much he wrote. He went too far in radically distinguishing between the essence and energies.

No, he did not. How do you say otherwise?

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Huh?Yeah it does.You have said that the Father shares everything with the Son except for that which is addressed by their opposing relationship, and therefore that the Son "possesses" the Spiration of the Holy Spirit. And yet, you are not willing to say that the same about the Holy Spirit sharing the Begetting of the Son, even though it should logically follow. Thus, the Holy Spirit is subordinated.

If the Holy Spirit shared the begetting of the Son, then He would be a Father, but no one has two Fathers but one. So no, the Holy Spirit is not subordinated. I have never been impressed by Eastern attempts to say that Catholics believe that the Holy Spirit was subordinate. I am especially not impressed when you know very well that we profess their equality.

No matter how much you say 1+1=1, I still won't be impressed.

If the Son shares the spiration, then it would have to be begotten first into the Son. Besides confusing the Persons, that subordinates the Spirit.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Huh?Yeah it does.You have said that the Father shares everything with the Son except for that which is addressed by their opposing relationship, and therefore that the Son "possesses" the Spiration of the Holy Spirit. And yet, you are not willing to say that the same about the Holy Spirit sharing the Begetting of the Son, even though it should logically follow. Thus, the Holy Spirit is subordinated.

If the Holy Spirit shared the begetting of the Son, then He would be a Father, but no one has two Fathers but one. So no, the Holy Spirit is not subordinated. I have never been impressed by Eastern attempts to say that Catholics believe that the Holy Spirit was subordinate. I am especially not impressed when you know very well that we profess their equality.

No matter how much you say 1+1=1, I still won't be impressed.

If the Son shares the spiration, then it would have to be begotten first into the Son. Besides confusing the Persons, that subordinates the Spirit.

This is nothing more than an assertion, so I will assert in a counter-point that it is meaningless to Catholic teaching on Filioque.

There is nothing in the Catholic theology of Filioque that says that the Son is the source of the Holy Spirit. In fact the theology of Filioque explicitly says that the Father is the sole source.

The Son has all He has from the Father by betting. If He had spiration, it would have to come that way too.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

The Son has all He has from the Father by betting. If He had spiration, it would have to come that way too.

I am sure you think this has meaning...even with a quick correction for "begetting" this makes no sense whatsoever. "If He had spiration"....what the dickens does that mean?

I would humbly suggest a quick look at the language of the Fathers who do NOT talk about the persons of he Trinity "having" qualities that identify them. Source, Filiation and Spiration are not possessions; they are not "things" to be had or not had, they are not even essential to the divine nature. All that is for us to be able to "see" who we are speaking to and about.

I am very curious about how some of you here on this board process Trinitarian teachings.

Huh?Yeah it does.You have said that the Father shares everything with the Son except for that which is addressed by their opposing relationship, and therefore that the Son "possesses" the Spiration of the Holy Spirit. And yet, you are not willing to say that the same about the Holy Spirit sharing the Begetting of the Son, even though it should logically follow. Thus, the Holy Spirit is subordinated.

If the Holy Spirit shared the begetting of the Son, then He would be a Father, but no one has two Fathers but one. So no, the Holy Spirit is not subordinated. I have never been impressed by Eastern attempts to say that Catholics believe that the Holy Spirit was subordinate. I am especially not impressed when you know very well that we profess their equality.

No matter how much you say 1+1=1, I still won't be impressed.

If the Son shares the spiration, then it would have to be begotten first into the Son. Besides confusing the Persons, that subordinates the Spirit.

Asserting your point is not the same as provin it. Just because you assert that the Filioque subordinates the Spirit, doesn't make it so.

Logged

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

Huh?Yeah it does.You have said that the Father shares everything with the Son except for that which is addressed by their opposing relationship, and therefore that the Son "possesses" the Spiration of the Holy Spirit. And yet, you are not willing to say that the same about the Holy Spirit sharing the Begetting of the Son, even though it should logically follow. Thus, the Holy Spirit is subordinated.

If the Holy Spirit shared the begetting of the Son, then He would be a Father, but no one has two Fathers but one. So no, the Holy Spirit is not subordinated. I have never been impressed by Eastern attempts to say that Catholics believe that the Holy Spirit was subordinate. I am especially not impressed when you know very well that we profess their equality.

If the Holy Spirit is the Father by sharing in begetting the Son, then the same is for the Son in sharing the spiration of the Spirit. Unless you can actually understand the difference between spirated and begotten.

I would humbly suggest a quick look at the language of the Fathers who do NOT talk about the persons of he Trinity "having" qualities that identify them. Source, Filiation and Spiration are not possessions; they are not "things" to be had or not had, they are not even essential to the divine nature. All that is for us to be able to "see" who we are speaking to and about.

Summed up easily: the Father is, the Son is begotten of the Father, the Spirit is spirated from the Father.

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Huh?Yeah it does.You have said that the Father shares everything with the Son except for that which is addressed by their opposing relationship, and therefore that the Son "possesses" the Spiration of the Holy Spirit. And yet, you are not willing to say that the same about the Holy Spirit sharing the Begetting of the Son, even though it should logically follow. Thus, the Holy Spirit is subordinated.

If the Holy Spirit shared the begetting of the Son, then He would be a Father, but no one has two Fathers but one. So no, the Holy Spirit is not subordinated. I have never been impressed by Eastern attempts to say that Catholics believe that the Holy Spirit was subordinate. I am especially not impressed when you know very well that we profess their equality.

No matter how much you say 1+1=1, I still won't be impressed.

If the Son shares the spiration, then it would have to be begotten first into the Son. Besides confusing the Persons, that subordinates the Spirit.

Asserting your point is not the same as provin it. Just because you assert that the Filioque subordinates the Spirit, doesn't make it so.

No, it doesn't.

Logic does that.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth